1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

A Lack of Transparency

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Hauser, Nov 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hauser

    Hauser Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    860
    I just downloaded the BOD minutes from the last Grand to specifically try and understand Rob Taylor's rationale for making a motion lower the target speed for singles to 40-43 mph and doubles to 37-40 mph.


    “Vice President Rob Taylor made a motion which was seconded by Vice President Alan Radway to
    make the following rule change:

    Make changes in the entire section to allow for target speeds of singles targets of 40 to 43 mph
    and allow for target speeds of right doubles target of 37 to 40 mph when set from the back of the house
    for low power radar guns and from the 16 yard line by high power radar guns. This motion was
    defeated by a majority of the Directors on a voice Vote.”


    What I found was that Rob made the motion, the motion was seconded by my vice-president Alan Radway, then it was defeated by a voice vote. Setting aside the merits of the motion what I would now like to know is


    1) why wasn't the discussion following the motion recorded, and


    2) why wasn't the vote on the motion a roll call rather than a voice vote.


    As it stands I don't know why the motion was made and I don't know which delegates think the motion was a good idea.


    Jerry Hauser
     
  2. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    14,686
    Location:
    NW Wisconsin
    Geez. I think that answer is pretty obvious. It had no support
     
  3. warpspeed

    warpspeed Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    569
    Location:
    Glendora, CA
    Neil made a comment about this not too long ago. Perhaps he can expand on it.
     
  4. V10

    V10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,623
    Location:
    Mojave Desert
    "1) why wasn't the discussion following the motion recorded, and"

    Discussions are not required to be recorded in meeting minutes (Roberts Rules of Order)

    "2) why wasn't the vote on the motion a roll call rather than a voice vote. "

    Voice vote is the "regular" method of voting. If the voice vote is inconclusive, another method of voting can be requested (Roberts Rules.)
     
  5. FlaLagarto

    FlaLagarto Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,458
    I personally had 3 delegates come talk to me about this suggested change in the rules. I would "assume" that other persons were spoken to also by other delegates and there was no support from the members. After all, aren't the delegates supposed to vote the way the members want ??
     
  6. miketmx

    miketmx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,963
    "Make changes in the entire section to allow for target speeds of singles targets of 40 to 43 mph and allow for target speeds of right doubles target of 37 to 40 mph"

    You gotta wonder if the intent of the motion was to slow down and shorten the distance the targets travel or to allow more flexibility for the target setters. Whatever I'm sure glad it never got off the ground. You also gotta wonder why the new rule that passed allows a 50 yard stake ??
     
  7. V10

    V10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,623
    Location:
    Mojave Desert
    Mike,

    The old rule regarding the stake was that "Where terrain allows, a visible stake must be placed ... "

    The new rule is "Where terrain allows, a visible stake may be placed ... "
     
  8. Hauser

    Hauser Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    860
    The reason for my post was to understand why there isn't more information regarding this proposed change in the minutes. I read the rest of the motions in the minutes but this proposal is significantly different in that it has the potential to radically change the sport. If thats the case why not record the discussion that took place following the motion and the subsequence vote???


    Jerry Hauser
     
  9. scooterbum

    scooterbum Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,193
    We might be on a need to know basis.
     
  10. scooterbum

    scooterbum Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,193
    So, with this attempt at lowering the speeds, along with an attempt at decreasing distance, and then negating the need for a 50 yards stake, it turns out that this was a pretty substantive meeting for trying to dummy down the sport even more!
     
  11. j2jake

    j2jake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,284
    Why not call Rob and ask him? Jake
     
  12. Sportshot

    Sportshot Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    532
    Location:
    ... somewhere out west, in the Rockies
    the Roberts Rules of Order --- sez you can't let the members know what was discussed??? what a farce!

    he is taking his playbook and talking points from Obama.

    ha,ha,ha... Get em' Hauser. Sunlight
     
  13. Leo

    Leo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,044
    Why would anyone want the targets slowed down? If the whole squad shoots 100's, what would be the challenge with that? I know it is not an ATA even, but I really like a hard throwing wobble trap. Not many straights, but when you get one, you really earned it.
     
  14. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,226
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    Jake, I think J.H. would like to know who the other delegates were that thought this was a dandy idea, or the 40% for it? 20 for it and 30 against the idea? I'd like to know too!

    Hap
     
  15. j2jake

    j2jake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,284
    Hap, I agree. Jake
     
  16. BigM-Perazzi

    BigM-Perazzi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    8,542
    Location:
    HELL, MICHIGAN
    Maybe YOUR vice president will give you the information if YOUR delegate won't..
     
  17. 870

    870 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,390
    The answer is as already stated. No documentation was made because it was defeated soundly. That is how meetings are run everywhere. Detailed recordings of discussions, and records of who voted which way are not made for every proposal. It's not a conspiricy.

    I agree that we should be concerned about which delegates actually would favor this, so the best thing is to ask those you can tell were in favor (probably two named already) and check with your delegate to see what he has to say about the issue, and to politely impress upon him how you feel about the matter.

    I can only guess that it was really something related to trying to help target setters, but it is a poor idea.
     
  18. scooterbum

    scooterbum Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,193
    "I can only guess"...

    is correct.

    Unless you include "and wonder".
     
  19. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,226
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    I don't think anyone is inferring this is some sort of conspiracy keeping information away from anyone! Like the thread title says, "A Lack of Transparency" in that department only!

    "I can only guess that it was really something related to trying to help target setters, but it is a poor idea."

    I do agree it was a (pizz) poor idea.

    To help target setters? Really 870? Exactly how would that help target setters do their job better or more efficiently? The would either set targets at 40 mph or at what the current rule calls for? That was a very poor guess coming from a guy with your intelligence and wordsmithing abilities!

    Hap
     
  20. Dr.Longshot

    Dr.Longshot Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,722
    I had to ask for a new rule book to get the target speeds that are now in the rule book, if anyone was wanting them slowed down, or dumbed down I also would like to know who voted for and against the motion. I guess there were 50 authorized delegates, that does not mean actual delegates.

    Why would anyone want to slow down the targets? 48-52 yards was or is the rule.

    Myself I would prefer them to be 52 yards. And 44Degrees.

    Gary Bryant
    Dr.longshot
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.